Well, if MS is going to start making it a requirement for 1st party games, or even just exclusives, to use the cloud for some form of processing, even if its single-player, then yes, that is bringing back form of online DRM.  That's basically saying, "Unless you connect to our servers for use of the cloud, even if you just want to play a single-player game, your game is gimped."  Has basically the same end result as 24 hr check in (actually you'll be connecting more often than that), only MS and Xbox fans can hide behind the magical cloud.

Didn't really care enough to read the rest of your post, as Sony was never going to implement DRM like that into the PS4.  Nice try, though.

Yeah, it's awful.

Yes MS has being using the cloud for PR.  They are the only company that is giving developers and publishers free dedicated servers for all of their games.  Its a selling point not only for game development for the X1 but also for people who play MP games.

 I will agree that the cloud will not close any straight up performance gap but it might provide some interesting games depending on how developers use the resource.

@BOLDED: Well of course everything the cloud can do can be done on local hardware.  What the cloud provides is a means to off load those task so that the local hardware can dedicate those resources to other task.  Thats just fundamental Client/Server tech.  The cloud is just a fancy buzz word to market but the underline technology is older than I am.  

Using Titanfall AI as a measure of offloading local processing is not gonna get you anywhere.  The AI in Titanfall is poor on purpose.  They are fodder and easy kills for newbies entering the game so that they can be at least successful in killing something before getting owned by more experience pilots.  Offloading the Ai just makes sense if you have dedicated hardware to make it happen.

Well, if Crackdown require the internet then it probably would be good not to purchase that game if you have poor or no internet.  Its a purchase decision more than anything else.  As long as those requirements are listed on the box who can really complain.  Titanfall, Destiny, The Division and a few other games will be coming out internet only.  If having to have the internet to play those games is a problem I am sure people will not purchase those games.

2nd Bolded:  There is a difference between dedicated servers which must be running all the time and PaaS dedicated servers which can be brought up and down based on demand.  The 2nd one is a cloud based infrastructure which saves a company resources and money while the other one is costly to maintain and is prone to being dropped when the developer/publisher run out of money, resources or low demand.  Without understanding the technology you do not see the benefits.  Not having to fork over your own money you do not see the savings.  How many 3rd party developers do you know of runnign their own servers.  Its not EA that eats that cost, its Respawn.  Last but not least, if you are playing a MP only game, you probably want to have a dedicated server hosting then P2P.  Either way we will see how things turn out.  I am interested to see how Respawn follow up with Titanfall 2 and what the solution will be.

@ Bolded:  Who says MS didn't go for that offer.  It was probably wise of EA and Respawn to not accept such an offer as it ties them to one platform for to long.  Since COD first came out on the Xbox before moving multi-platform, I highly doubt EA screwed up anything.  Instead Respawn must continue to improve their product and make it mass market enough to reach COD type of sales.  It matters not which platform it first appeared on, its more important that polish, features and word of mouth.

Didn't say it was the reason it got big, but the franchise still exploded even though the first entry in the gen was exclusive to the Xbox 360 in terms of consoles. So there's no reason to rule that out for Titanfall. Too early to say EA mishandled anything.

No, it would have been popular regardless of exclusivity.

Just like Watch Dogs, Destiny, CoD, BF, etc.

You used If a lot lol. Seems like you are really really hoping they bring back DRM. Will you get one then?

Yes, they did mishandled it. EA want's their CoD killer that BF never was and TF was exactly that: faster than CoD, made by the CoD guys. It had everything. But they believed that X1 would crush PS4 and Sony wouldn't matter, so they wanted to grab the extra cash from MS. But the market division wasn't as they expected and PS4 got a much bigger market and they weren't there.

Now Destiny will come and will start to become the CoD killer, because Activision is smart and know that no franchise lasts forever and if someone has to grab CoD's place, it's better if they do that themselves. So they got a famous developer and create a shooter with a massive marketing budget that simply will sell more than everyone expects on all platforms.

All games that opted for exclusivity never recovered from it. Metal Gear and Final Fantasy always sells much better on PS, Mass Effect on XB, it's just how it is. The first game creates a fanbase and people that gets out of this party will forget the game because they were denied to play it. People on PS wanted to play it and probably got mad because they couldn't and finally accepted it and put it on the same bag as Halo and Gears: the games we won't be able to play. People them focused their hype on the next CoD, Destiny, Uncharted any any hyped game that they could actually play. So TF will never recover from it and will always be XB oriented. That wasn't as bad as it sounds in the previous gen when install bases were basically 50/50, but now they will be associated with a smaller base.

The game was a good seller, but no matter what EA say, it didn't reach what they wanted. They want the premier shooter franchise that prints money and a gen transition plus the signs of fatigue in CoD made that their perfect timing. They would even manage to get a head start against Destiny but they simply screwed it.

Unless they plan on adding a single player campaign mode to Titanfall 2, i wouldn't have bought it for the PS4 anyways.

The problem with this theory is we have evidence that they actually were talking about pulling the plug on the game and the company before they opted to allow another company to step in and financially back the game. If this were their "CoD killer" that "prints money" then they'd have not only made damn sure to provide ample funding for game one, but would have immediately locked up the IP for good. Look at what Activision is doing with Destiny. $500,000,000 committted for the life of the franchise already.

Another thing people don't really understand is the game was only going to be on Xbox One at launch no matter what kind of deals MS/EA reached simply because Respawn only had the manpower for development on one console and Sony was being extremely tight lipped about PS4 information. You can read all about it in The Final Hours of Titanfall. Yes, EA then made a deal to extend that exclusive timeline for a period of 13 months. And then when MS stepped in with financial support for development, in September of 2013 IIRC, they made the exclusive lifetime for the first title. Has nothing to do with "thinking Xbone would crush PS4". What 99% of people posting in these threads fail to grasp is the exclusive deals were done for obvious reasons and saved the game from getting canceled.

So the alternative to exclusive deals you think ruined the franchises potential, is pulling the plug, which really kills any potential. I mean I think Titanfall 2 will sell more on PS4 than no Titanfall ever releasing will ever sell on PS4.